Another view of bonds
Gilroy’s J.A. Tarmann writes
”
Measure I is a worthy bond measure to support (Gilroy’s)
schools.
”
The bond measure may be worthy, but those who’ll oversee its use
are not. The Gilroy Unified School District’s Board of Trustees and
Superintendent Edwin Diaz consistently show fiscal irresponsibility
and unending indifference to those who’ll be forced to pay for
Measure I, if it passes.
Another view of bonds
Gilroy’s J.A. Tarmann writes “Measure I is a worthy bond measure to support (Gilroy’s) schools.”
The bond measure may be worthy, but those who’ll oversee its use are not. The Gilroy Unified School District’s Board of Trustees and Superintendent Edwin Diaz consistently show fiscal irresponsibility and unending indifference to those who’ll be forced to pay for Measure I, if it passes.
You list the litany of maintenance problems throughout Gilroy’s schools. You don’t explain why these problems exist – why past bond measures have failed to maintain schools. Should voters believe Measure I will correct these problems and maintain the schools in top shape when past measures have not?
Don’t claim Measure I is “for the students.” They’re secondary to the grandiose scheme of GUSD “leadership,” who consistently waste their promise and fiscal resources-to fulfill their personal agendas at the expense of what the students’ may need.
James Brescoll
Gilroy
Letter distorted facts
“Our aim is to unite the community through information” was a quote from your executive editor in The Pinnacle, Oct. 11. The remark was made when she accepted the ABBY award. I wanted to congratulate you on receiving this award.
The same newspaper had a letter from an opponent of the Gilroy School Bond measure (Measure I). Unfortunately that letter not only was not written to unite our community, it had its facts wrong.
Several times over the past few months, the question of the outside consultant and the $700,000 has come up. Every time, the response has been that the outside consultancy company is getting paid only $65,000 (and only if the measure passes). That amount is fully funded by the campaign and not through public money. The $700,000 is the fee for the Bond underwriter and is not something that can be avoided. It’s like buying a house and not wanting to pay the notary and other fees: can’t be done. The 1 percent fee is a standard expenditure of a Bond measure.
Mr. Alan Viarengo states that he’s not receiving answers, but he purposely ignores any answers given to him because it will take away his arguments for opposition. And so he’s trying to win votes by misrepresenting certain facts that have been asked and answered.
I would urge everyone to check out the District’s web site
(www.gusd.k12.ca.us http://www.gusd.k12.ca.us/ ), click on “School
Facilities” and read information related to the bond for themselves. Many parents have asked for the Board and the District to be more open and to improve communication. With a significant investment in time from volunteers and with no additional need for funds, the District is working hard to deliver on that need. The web site has a lot more information than was available in the past. The web site is easier to navigate and we’re working on using e-mail to get even more and up-to-date information to the parents who have access to email and wish to receive these updates.
Is Measure I needed? You bet! Take a look for yourself on the plans for each school. Then, after looking at the list of proposed improvements, decide whether these are needed or if we can easily do without them.
“I don’t care how the buildings look at Rucker” is a quote from one of the opponents. Well, I do care, not only how they look, but also that my children’s school is a safe, healthy and great learning environment. That and the fact that new schools are needed make the choice for Measure I an easy one. By voting YES on I, we’ll improve the quality of education for all the students in Gilroy.
Rob van Herk
Gilroy
The scoop on the symphony
I was at last Sunday’s winery party and received a different impression of the symphony organization from what I read in The Pinnacle article. Rather than a merger of the San Jose Symphony with the ballet, what I heard there and have read speaks to forming a “new” symphony organization: Symphony San Jose Silicon Valley, plus a new management organization for the new symphony and the existing ballet. The tie-in with the in-bankruptcy San Jose Symphony (as I understand it) is that the new Symphony San Jose will hire many of the same musicians, as the ballet has been doing for its own orchestra. Now the new Symphony San Jose SV is the orchestra for the ballet; the ballet’s orchestra formerly was known as the Ballet San Jose Silicon Valley Orchestra, with the same musicians.
Bob Shomler
Morgan Hill
Gilroy council decision archaic
So George Orwell was about 18 years off. What the City of Gilroy has succeeded in doing is making a club like The Forum go further underground.
Since they used the word ‘Prohibition,’ they make me think of the ‘speak-easies’ of the 1930s. Remembering history also makes me believe that others will have these ‘group sessions’ without taking any precautions such as Deena Luce has. That protecting the rights of women and all adults are key.
What we are talking about is ‘consenting adults.’ How does the activity behind closed doors have anything to do with property values? When using a condom is one the safest ways to have sex, and they are provided at the Forum. The City of Gilroy says that they are fighting the spread of sexually transmitted diseases by banning the club altogether. It makes me think of two
Words – Election Year.
They say that they are protecting the quality of life, but what they are really saying is that as long as it is out of the zoning district of the city. It’s amazing the similarities between the scent of politics and of a stockyard. If you think about it, if you found out that a drug-rehab center was moving in next door, you would fight like hell to stop it. So much for improving the quality of life for others.
I hope you have your apartments and homes wired for video cameras because the City of Gilroy will want to be watching soon. Believe me, they will charge for installation too.
Dave Baum
San Martin
A look at “I” facts
I have been puzzled by the vehement and vitriolic opposition to the proposed Gilroy school bonds as evidenced by Mr. Viarengo’s recent letter to this paper. I have no idea what reasons he has for his opposition, but I am sure he feels he is totally in the right. His follow-up letter does give a hint about the source of his frustration – he feels he has been ignored, and nobody likes to be ignored.
While I empathize with his frustration, I cannot agree with his viewpoint. I wholeheartedly support the Gilroy Unified School District and their efforts to raise the needed money through this bond issue.
We came to Gilroy 18 months ago and own a home in the area served by Las Animas School. Our children are grown and thus will not have to endure the conditions at that school. It would be very tempting for us to turn our backs on the schools and the children of this community and oppose anything that would increase our taxes. I cannot do that.
I am a first generation immigrant and a naturalized citizen. Both of my parents had died before I came to the U.S. I finished high school in this country and was able to take advantage of the public education system funded by taxes paid by someone else. After I served in the U.S. Army from 1963-1968, I used the GI Bill to help pay for college. That money also came from the American taxpayer.
I am convinced that it is now my responsibility to make sure that today’s children can get a decent education in decent schools. They deserve nothing less.
I must question the figures Mr. Viarengo cites to support his opposition. He claims that the Gilroy School District spends $9,500 per pupil. I checked the school system’s web site at www.gusd.k12.ca.us and did some further digging. I found the following for the 2002-2003 school year:
The unrestricted budget covers general expenditures and equals $47,157,579. The restricted budget pays for mandated or categorical programs and equals $14,534,914. The monies for this portion come largely from federal and state sources – with the usual strings attached.
The enrollment for this year is expected to be 9,530 students. Therefore, the total cost is $6,473.50 per student, which is a far cry from $9,500.
It is fair to compare St. Mary’s School and its budget with all of Gilroy’s schools as long as the differences are understood and spelled out. St. Mary’s concentrates on grades K-8 and does not have the expense of an extramural athletic program, nor does it have to deal with the state mandated programs that are funded by the restricted budget. Students’ families are expected to contribute 50 hours per year of voluntary help to the school. St. Mary’s also has the luxury of being able to accept only students who meet their entrance requirements. Public schools must accept everyone and must therefore educate a much more heterogeneous population.
Tuition for non-parish students is $4,676 per year, which is the full cost of educating the student. Students whose parents belong to the parish pay $3,741. Fundraisers throughout the year are used to make up the difference. There are fees of $400, which pay for field trips, special activities, and books. St. Mary’s does not get any state or federal funds, nor does it have to deal with the restrictions that go with them.
The budget per student would drop to $4,948 if the Gilroy School District could reject the $14.5 million and the restrictions that go with them.
I urge you to do your own research and make your decision based on facts.
Guenter Bruckmann
Gilroy
Gilroy then and now
As I crank up the ‘Trout Quintet’ by Franz Schubert to drown out the never ending backing up beepers on the construction trucks, and never ending development of future homes that will sit as empty as the rest of them in Gilroy, I notice music doesn’t do anything to stop the violent shaking of the windows caused by heavy equipment on the construction site. Or, is that my nerves again?
I pick up The Pinnacle to find my solace by reading Elizabeth Barratt’s column ‘Reminiscing on Fifth Street’ (The Pinnacle, Oct. 11). Elizabeth tells us of how it felt to be part of a small community in which caring for the existing community’s quality of life was more important than enticing new developers. I find an involuntary smile cross my mouth as I read her article, and a feeling I can only liken to being woven between the stitches of a sweater worn soft with time. For a time I’m removed from the chaos of construction madness in Gilroy.
She serves to us a reminder of who occupied which property, where families and memories resided. I’d much rather enjoy seeing Mrs. Staniford’s Victorian home than see a modern apartment building on Fifth street, as I would much rather gaze at the long gone mustard fields, rabbits and coyotes who were our neighbors instead of the dust clouds and skeletal wooden framing ever sprouting from the ground, near the banks of Uvas creek.
M.C. Baker
Gilroy
